Shri Hari Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1199 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition aggrieved by the size of the alternative plot made available to them under the large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi in 1961.

2. The petitioners were owning approximately 45 bighas of land in respect of notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 in 1957 and 1959 and under Section 6 in 1961. A scheme known as Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 was propounded on 2.5.1961 for rehabilitation of persons whose land was acquired as an additional measure apart from the compensation paid to such persons. Para 3 of the scheme states that residential plots to be leased out should not exceed 800 sq.yds and the size of the plot has to be determined by the Chief Commissioner taking into consideration the area and the value of the land acquired from the individual vis-a-vis the location and value of the plot to be allotted in terms of para 8(i)(a) of the scheme.

3. The case of the petitioners was processed by the Delhi Administration and letter dated 27.6.1981 was issued to respondent No. 2 DDA recommending the case of the petitioners for allotment of 250 sq.yds plot in North Zone for which they had been found entitled. A copy of the letter was forwarded to petitioner No. 1 with the further stipulation as under:-

"The allotment of the alternative plot is subject to the availability of plots with the Delhi development Authority. However, it may clearly be noted that this letter does not carry with the legal commitment for the allotment of alternative plot."

4. This recommendation was confirmed by letter dated 14.10.1981 of respondent No. 4, Delhi Administration. The petitioners made a representation dated 11.1.82 for allotment of a larger size of the plot in view of the fact that area acquired in respect of the petitioners was large. The petitioners enclosed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of a demand draft along with the said letter as also requisite affidavit and undertaking.

5. A draw was held for allotment of a specific plot and the petitioner was allotted plot No. M.P.-8, Pitam Pura measuring 153.5 sq.mts. The petitioners represented for change of area to Wazirpur (Ashok Vihar) Residential Scheme vide letter dated 3.4.82 but the said request was rejected on 9.6.82. The petitioner continued to represent and vide letter dated 30.11.82 the request for the change of plot from Pitampura to Shalimar Bagh was acceded to subject to payment of surcharge as determined by the Finance Department of the DDA. The petitioner was required to give consent to the same which was however not given.

6. On 22.1.83 a circular was issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in respect of the size of alternative plots to be allotted in lieu of land acquired. It is stated in the circular that originally the plot had to be allotted on the basis of a formula of 40% of the land acquired subject to maximum of 800 sq.yds which was subsequently restricted to 400 sq.yds. It is noted in the circular that it had come to the notice that DDA was allotting alternative plots of 250 sq.yds only but that there was not justification for restricting the size of alternative plots to less than 400 sq.yds when farmers had comparatively large family to accomodate in the houses. It was thus directed that the size of the alternative plots should be worked out on the formula of 40% of the land acquired subject to maximum of 800 sq.yds which was subsequently restricted to 400 sq.yds.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that in view of the aforesaid facts the petitioners should have been allotted at least 400 sq.yds plot for which prayer has been made in the writ petition.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that since the area acquired which was owned by the petitioners was large, the petitioners must be given alternative plot commensurate with the area acquired. Learned senior counsel specifically drew attention to the averments in para 34 where illustrations have been given of other persons of acquisition of land where larger plot areas have been given.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that it is apparent from the letter of the Delhi Administration dated 27.6.81 that it was only a recommendation for allotment of plot of 250 sq. yds and that respondent No. 2 DDA was not bound by the recommendation including for the size of the plot. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since sufficient number of plots were not available the petitioners and other persons were offered plots of about 200 sq.yds in North Zone, Delhi which was accepted by the petitioner by depositing Rs. 3,000/-.

10. In so far as the allegations of discrimination are concerned it is stated that in so far as another plot in Wazirpur is concerned, the name of the petitioners was also included along with the successful allottees in the draw of lots but the other allottee was successful and thus the petitioners cannot make grievance in respect of the same. Similarly in para 29 of the counter affidavit two other cases cited in the petition have been dealt with explaining that there was no discrimination and wherever persons agreed to pay the surcharge and premium for excess area the person was considered for the said allottment measuring about 200 sq.yds. This is stated to be in conformity with the requirement of payment of such surcharge which was circulated vide note of the Accounts Officer dated 24.8.1981.

11. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is based on the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 29(FB) where it was held that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi has no absolute right to allottment but he is eligible to be considered for allottment for an alternative plot for residential purposes. This judgment of the Full Bench has been followed by the Division Bench in Bhagwana v. Union of India where it was further held that the alternative plots are to be allotted zone-wise and not locality-wise in terms of the policy and there was no interference required in respect of the said policy.

12. Learned counsel for respondents has also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this court in Khazan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. CW No. 1958/1996 decided on 28.10.1998. In the said case also a similar situation arose where the recommendation of the Delhi Administration was for a plot measuring 400 sq.yds. The Division Bench considered this aspect and was of the view that in view of the letter itself stipulating that there was no legal committment for allotment of alternative plot and the same was subject to availability with the DDA. the letter of recommendation does not create any right.

13. If is thus the contention of learned counsel for respondents that the petitioners had no right of allotment of a plot of a particular size.

14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

15. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ramanand's case (supra) there cannot be any doubt that there is no absolute right to allottment but only for consideration of allottment. The petitioners were considered for allottment and were allotted a plot but the petitioners at that stage wanted a larger plot in a different area. The request for change of the area to an extent was accepted by respondent No. 2 subject to payment of certain charges. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Bhagwana's case (supra) the petitioners cannot also claim right of allotment in a particular area. The claim of the petitioners for a larger size of plot cannot also be sustained in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Khazan Singh's case (supra). The result of the aforesaid is that the petitioners cannot be granted the reliefs as claimed for in the writ petition.

16. However, the passage of time has itself created a further problem. There has been no interim orders reserving any plot for the petitioners. It can, however, not be doubted that the petitioners after due consideration were held entitled to a plot of 153.5 sq.mts. In my considered view at least this entitlement of the petitioner the respondents are not entitled to dispute specially in view of the fact that the petitioners had paid the initial amount of Rs. 3,000/-. It is possible that a plot of exactly the same size may not be available now but plot size of approximately the same area is liable to be made available to the petitioners.

17. It has been held in Ramanand's case (supra) that the rate of premium has to be charged on the date when the offer of allottment is made.

18. The question, however, remains as to where the petitioners should be allotted a plot and at what price. As observed above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner will be entitled to a plot of the size originally allotted of 153.5 sq.mts or about that size and in the original zone where the petitioners was so allotted being the North Zone.

19. In so far as the price of the plot is concerned the same will have to be on the basis of the price prevalent on the date of allottment.

should take necessary steps within a period of two months from today to process the case of the petitioners and issued an allottment letter in favor of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid directions. IN view of the request made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that allotment should be made jointly in the name of all the petitioners.

21. Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.